Isn't Bitcoin meant to be public or something, not 'public when you want it to be'?

Fact is, a lot of software companies would never make it public. You're free to try to find the vulnerability in the code yourself, but nobody is obligated to tell you what it is. The code is public. Go read it.

Additionally, it will be made public. It's unimportant the details of what happened as long as a fix has been released. (At least in the short-term.)

Bitcoin is the ultimate freedom test. It tells you who is giving lip service and who genuinely believes in it.

......In the future, books that summarize the history of money will have a line that says, “and then came bitcoin.” It is the economic singularity. And we are living in it now. - Ryan Dickherber......ATTENTION BFL MINING NEWBS: Just got your Jalapenos in? Wondering how to get the most value for the least hassle? Give BitMinter a try! It's a smaller pool with a fair & low-fee payment method, lots of statistical feedback, and it's easier than EasyMiner!(Yes, we want your hashing power, but seriously, it IS the easiest pool to use! Sign up in seconds to try it!)......

Why Gavin did not use 0xBE38D3A8 key for signing the post? Did I got wrong key in my chain?

No, you didn't. I'm curious of this myself.

I don't know if it is relevant, but I happened to see the post when it was first put up, and I saw a signed statement, and upon refresh I saw the signature removed, and another refresh I saw the signature put back on. Unfortunately, I didn't keep any copies of the first post and its initial signature.

Why Gavin did not use 0xBE38D3A8 key for signing the post? Did I got wrong key in my chain?

I can't speak for why Gavin signed the message with his "CODE SIGNING KEY" rather than his normal one, but at least I can confirm that this key is 4096-bit (his normal one is only 1024-bit) and signed by the normal one. It's also the one he uses to sign all his release builds.

I don't know if it is relevant, but I happened to see the post when it was first put up, and I saw a signed statement, and upon refresh I saw the signature removed, and another refresh I saw the signature put back on. Unfortunately, I didn't keep any copies of the first post and its initial signature.

It's not relevant. The signature was removed when he edited the post to correct the stable version numbers (he had 1 higher than the correct versions), and he resigned the corrected message later.

First of all I did not doubt the genuinity of Gavin's post at all. I was surprised that the Gavin's key did not match one stored in my keyring, and I was lazy enough to not look for other signatures.

Quote

SourceForge uploads require 3 independent people to build the same binaries to verify their integrity. Want to volunteer to help out with 0.4.x? :p

Maybe. The wx version sure needs to live on, as it is better in all aspects than qt version in my opinion. The biggest problem is that I'm not a programmer. I can compile software from source, I can take look at the code and guess what it probably does, and that's all.

SourceForge uploads require 3 independent people to build the same binaries to verify their integrity. Want to volunteer to help out with 0.4.x? :p

Maybe. The wx version sure needs to live on, as it is better in all aspects than qt version in my opinion.

wxBitcoin is for all "official" purposes unmaintained and dead. I only support bitcoind 0.4.x, not wxBitcoin. If you want to resurrect it, I'm happy to help, but there will need to be at least one real developer who cares about it...

The biggest problem is that I'm not a programmer. I can compile software from source, I can take look at the code and guess what it probably does, and that's all.

Getting stuff on SourceForge requires being able to compile with gitian, not much more. That requires Ubuntu right now. If you can help with this, ping me in #Bitcoin-Dev (IRC) and I'll try to help you through it.

I only support bitcoind 0.4.x, not wxBitcoin. If you want to resurrect it, I'm happy to help, but there will need to be at least one real developer who cares about it...

Wasn't BitcoinD the same Bitcoin client in "headless" mode?

Quote

If you want to resurrect it, I'm happy to help, but there will need to be at least one real developer who cares about it...

Probably not by me, unless someone want to run Bitcoin look-alike wallet stealer But there is some people who like the wx version better. Maybe starting to collect bounty to be paid for releasing up-to-date Bitcoin-wx is a better idea.

I only support bitcoind 0.4.x, not wxBitcoin. If you want to resurrect it, I'm happy to help, but there will need to be at least one real developer who cares about it...

Wasn't BitcoinD the same Bitcoin client in "headless" mode?

Yes, wxBitcoin and bitcoind 0.4 share(d) the same codebase, and bitcoind 0.4.x is still built with wxBitcoin to avoid breaking anything subtle. But nobody is looking out for or fixing GUI-specific issues, for example. Ideally, someone would bring it up to speed with a port to the 0.6.x codebase too (which I could then just backport fixes from).

If you want to resurrect it, I'm happy to help, but there will need to be at least one real developer who cares about it...

Probably not by me, unless someone want to run Bitcoin look-alike wallet stealer But there is some people who like the wx version better. Maybe starting to collect bounty to be paid for releasing up-to-date Bitcoin-wx is a better idea.

Probably not by me, unless someone want to run Bitcoin look-alike wallet stealer But there is some people who like the wx version better. Maybe starting to collect bounty to be paid for releasing up-to-date Bitcoin-wx is a better idea.

It might be more efficient to raise funds to fix whatever you don't like in the -qt GUI— even if there are irreconcilable differences maintaining a fork of the QT gui would be a lot less work than WX, it's easier to get people willing to work with QT, and the WX version is even a pain to build.

Probably not by me, unless someone want to run Bitcoin look-alike wallet stealer But there is some people who like the wx version better. Maybe starting to collect bounty to be paid for releasing up-to-date Bitcoin-wx is a better idea.

It might be more efficient to raise funds to fix whatever you don't like in the -qt GUI— even if there are irreconcilable differences maintaining a fork of the QT gui would be a lot less work than WX, it's easier to get people willing to work with QT, and the WX version is even a pain to build.

Can Qt version be made to look and function indistinguishable from wx? I don't think so. There are some software based on Qt that look good and are intuitive to use, but not many.